Precise pleadings are essential in writ proceedings; vague objections cannot sustain a challenge to distraint and recovery action.

A writ petition challenging distraint and recovery proceedings was held not maintainable because the affidavit did not state the grounds of attack with precision and specificity. In Article 226 proceedings, objections must be clear, explicit, and properly pleaded so that the Court and the opposite party can answer them; vague, ambiguous, and jumbled allegations are insufficient to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. As the petitioner's objections to the distraint order, the quantum of tax, and non-adjustment of payment were not specifically raised in the affidavit, the writ challenge failed and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the distraint and recovery proceedings could be entertained when the affidavit did not set out the grounds of attack with precision and specificity.

Analysis: The petitioner's objections to the authority issuing the distraint order, the alleged dispute regarding the quantum of tax, and the claimed non-adjustment of payment were not specifically pleaded in the affidavit. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, affidavits must be precise and explicit, because the Court and the opposite party must know the exact grounds to be answered. Vague, ambiguous, and jumbled allegations do not justify the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly where the record showed no clear and specific challenge to the impugned recovery steps.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the vague and pleadings and was dismissed.

---